 |
 |
|
STATEMENT BY MATTHEW GORDON REGARDING 70TH DISTRICT PUSH POLL
There is apparently a telephone poll in progress in the 70th District legislative race, which seems in part intended to misrepresent my views on a number of issues. I do not know who sponsored the poll. The pollster claims to be "independent", but the poll itself appears to be of the "push-poll" variety, which attempts to persuade voters against a candidate, rather than to simply measure the voters' leanings. I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight, so that voters are informed of my correct positions and the context in which they are made. I provide several examples below.
1) The pollster is falsely suggesting to the voters contacted that I will support Governor Rendell on every issue, right or wrong. Obviously, I will not support legislation that I view to be wrong, regardless of its source. Unlike my 6-term incumbent opponent, John Fichter, I promise to be a truly independent voice that will put the public interest above party politics at every turn. I believe that the partisan politics in Harrisburg has been too bitter and divisive, and I hope to help end that when I am elected.
My opponent, John Fichter, on the other hand, has voted to obstruct Governor Rendell's initiatives, regardless of whether they have been good or bad. Fichter opposed Growing Greener II, which has been endorsed by newspapers and citizen groups statewide as a "no-brainer". Although Fichter supported Rendell's first budget, this was a budget that Rendell asked the legislature NOT to pass. Fichter voted against the budget that was endorsed by Rendell. Fichter also voted against the initiative to generate money for property tax reduction through legalized slot machines. On these issues, Fichter's actions have been against the public interest in property tax reduction, local economic development, and environmental protection. Fichter's votes seem to have been motivated strictly by partisan politics. If the voters of the 70th District want an independent voice that will put the public interest above partisanship, I am their logical choice.
2) My position on medical malpractice liability reform is being falsely represented by the telephone pollster. I have a four-pronged approach to reduce the untenable cost of medical malpractice insurance, which is driving doctors from our area, and to protect citizens from medical mistakes. (It should be noted that this is an issue on which I break ranks with many of my fellow Democrats.) First, we need to empower a panel made up of doctors and lawyers to head off frivolous lawsuits before they hit the courts. The panel must have powers to punish lawyers who repeatedly burden the courts with such cases. Second, we need to strengthen the state's ability to stop bad doctors from practicing. The vast majority of good doctors should not pay the penalty for a minority of malpracticing doctors. Thirdly, we need to reduce the motivation for lawyers to pursue questionable cases, by limiting legal fees in malpractice cases. Lawyers are profiting outrageously (30% or more of the total award, in many cases) by pursuing these cases. While lawyers should get a fair and even generous profit for the risks they are taking on in these cases, the million-dollar profits they take from these cases put an undue burden on the medical profession and on our community. Instead, the high legal fees only serve to encourage unscrupulous lawyers towards excessive litigation, increase insurance costs, and reduce the availability of medical services, while doing little to compensate the true victims. A formula for caps on awards for legal fees should be developed, which should be based on the actual hours worked by the legal team. Fourth, while we need to provide fair compensation to legitimate victims of malpractice, including punitive damages to punish perpetrators of malpractice, the awards must not punish society as a whole by making the practice of medicine financially impossible. I remain unconvinced, however, that a one-size-fits-all cap for punitive damages is appropriate. Therefore, I would consider a menu of caps on jury awards for punitive damages.
3) The pollster attempts to take advantage of a controversial issue by pointing out that I support the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana. While this is a true position of mine, I want to make sure the voter understands the context of my position. I am in favor of taking every reasonable action to reduce drug abuse. However, our state prisons are dangerously overcrowded, and our court systems are overburdened. The costs of imprisonment of petty drug offenders represent a waste of state resources, and an undue burden on taxpayers. Therefore, I am in favor of reducing the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana to a reasonable misdemeanor and fine to punish the offendor, and also to discourage continued marijuana abuse. I am also in favor of mandatory drug treatment programs for offenders, to try and head off the cycle of criminality that results from unduly harsh sentencing, particularly for young people entering our criminal justice system.
There may be other areas where my views are misrepresented in this current telephone poll, which I have not yet heard. I encourage my supporters to contact me at 610-489-2715 if you have further information regarding misrepresentations in the poll, so that I can publicly respond. I have also invited John Fichter to publicly debate, so that we can honestly discuss our different positions and approaches. Mr. Fichter has not responded to my invitation. I thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight regarding my positions, so that voters can make an informed choice, to put the public interest first, on November 2, by voting for me.
Matthew Gordon
Democratic Candidate for State Representative 70th District
October 1, 2004
|
 |
